Healthcare is 'a privilege...not a right': GOP lawmaker

Originally posted by Divinorumus
Because WE know what FREEDOM actually means?

There is no such thing as absolute freedom.

Originally posted by Divinorumus
Listen, the bottom line is this for me: If your RIGHT imposes a DEMAND (an enslavement, an imposition, a detriment, an expense, etc.) upon another,
it CAN NOT be a legitimate RIGHT.

If everyone pays for a national healthcare system in the form of taxes then how is that "enslavement"? A rich man will pay the same rate as a
middle class man who will pay the same rate as the poor soul in need of medical attention.

Everyone pays and everyone receives. No one will be burdened additional money just because they can afford to pay more...

Originally posted by Divinorumus
What you may call a RIGHT can not lead to the enslavement of others in order to fulfill your RIGHT. Does this make any sense?

This is why socialism will never work among us ALL, because those that would be enslaved in order to fulfill a socialists dreams will simply leave for
greener freer pastures, just like our ancestors once did before. Get them monkeys off my back.

I am sorry but everyone has a RIGHT to basic medical attention. 99% of the world has ALREADY figured that out! Why is this difficult to accept

Very poor people do not pay taxes, and if you give them more subsidies, ie healthcare, the funds have to come from somewhere, which will be from the
people already paying taxes for other stuff.

The very poor dont pay income taxes. But everyone pays taxes. Almost everything you buy is taxed. And, just because someone is poor now, does not
mean they never paid income tax. Anyone can have a bad year, a crippling injury, etc. Even good people who paid taxes most of their lives.

Originally posted by Aaron_Justin
I don't think anyone would like to see an ill person denied care, but, there must be a better way than the government just taking over.

And more taxes..

The government created this mess by helping doctors lock out more doctors. Because they are the problem, they have to be part of the solution. And
yes, it will cost money. I dont believe universal insurance is the answer. As I said earlier, I think creating more doctors is the answer. But we
arent going to get there without the government stepping in and undoing what they helped cause.

Originally posted by whaaa
Perhaps the Health Care system could be funded from Sales tax.

That's the way to do it! (provided only the non-essential items of life are taxed in this way) In this way, socialism can remain voluntary. You
want that large screen home entertainment center? Fine, pay cash for it (NO more consumer credit), and you pay into the socialist network. And
then folks like me, that do not need or want to fund someone else's socialist lifestyle and has no NEED for non-essential items in life can opt out
of this whole monkey on our backs ideals! I like that idea.

Problem with that is how do we make sure those haters of socialism dont use the Health care system when their parents or kids or themselves are dying
of cancer? How do we lock them out? How do we keep those who will not pay for that safety net from taking advantage of that net when they find
themselves in a bind?

Give Medical cards to those who buy large screen TV's? Doesnt that end up locking out not only those who dont want universal health care, but those
too poor to buy large screen TVs? And if it locks out the poor, then what is the point of it? Also, if it allows in those who scream "NO
SOCIALISM!" when things are good for them, but allows them to freeload off those same programs when they need to, how is that going to make the
system viable?

Just like corporate America screamed "small government!" until they needed that big government check to save their butts.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Everyone pays and everyone receives. No one will be burdened additional money just because they can afford to pay more...

I'd rather pay for what I actually use and receive. In your proposal, everyone would pay, but only some would receive. I do not like the idea of
socialist health care when there is no requirement for anyone to properly maintain themselves. When I was without health insurance, I made exercising
and a proper diet a high priority, because I knew what the consequences would be if I did not maintain myself.

Think of this like auto insurance. Would you also be happy if all the DUI folks paid the same insurance rates as those that drive responsibly?

We need a solution that includes personal responsibility. Half of this health care issue is taking good care of ourselves. Who would worry about the
consequences of over-eating or not exercising if they wouldn't have to bear responsibility for what that leads to?

Sorry, I want a solution that holds me responsible for myself, otherwise people will just abuse the heck out of any other solution. Look at how many
people complain about health care that do not exercise or maintain a proper healthy diet. You want to see MORE of that? Every one of us can help
reduce the cost of medical care if we got up off our couch potato teevee watching butts and used that time to take good care of ourselves.

Just like we need to force people to live within their means, I think we need to force people to take care of themselves. I'll go for a national
health care solution if part of that mandates that EVERYONE get up and runs 6 miles every morning! Okay? Can you go for that?

You want everyone to run 6 miles? Really? Even the people with degenerative knee, back and other ailments? The very old who have heart conditions? So
we can pay for all the additional surgeries that would cause?

Almost every kind of health insurance does charge more for smokers. I think that something could be worked out so that those who live high risk life
styles (including the over eaters) pay more, if it isnt in there already. But you cant just mandate running. You would cause more problems than you
solve.

Instead of more taxation why not add national healthcare to the social security system? Increase social security withholdings and decrease state tax
which is usually high. Do away with medicare and medicaid.... Cut down on unnecessary local beuracracy and make everything more centralised. For
example no township police or county sheriff, state police is plenty.

At the federal level we can do with less agencies and a smaller defense budget. I don't have the perfect solution but I know we can cut down in many
areas and reallocate these funds where they are most necessary.

As for self responsibility, I am all for it but how can we implement a system which discriminates into different classes? And besides these people
punish themselves more than they punish the system or anyone else; low self esteem, increased rate of aids/cancer, heart disease, smaller life span,
inability to walk/run, etc.

Can you imagine if they had the option of actually controlling who gets what and when and how even more so than they do now?

I'd rather get trashed on Tequila and saw off my own arm.

And whether or not you choose to "run" for whatever reason,I DO believe there SHOULD be considerable incentives for those of us who work hard to
stay fit and healthy,hopefully minimizing our risks of burdening the "system."

Healthy people aren't profitable enough. I have been very ill and chose to become very healthy and have seen the difference first hand.

Well, the prudent response would be to conduct a study, which determines how large a proportion of those without medical insurance suffer from
illnesses, which actually merit medical attention. Your conjecture is not worth a dime. You arrogantly assume that half of medical insurance costs are
related to lack of physical fitness. So what? There are a large proportion of people whose ailments are not related to your baseless claim. You can't
just eliminate half of the population at whim. So lets actually fund a study, with tax payer money, to figure this out. Let's digitize medical
records so that each case that can be analyzed and scrutinized to the fullest extent. This way we can focus in on individuals who are merely abusing
the system. We can cut out all those individuals who seem to be taking a free ride. That would place a lot of incentive for people to start to take
care of themselves. This isn't a zero-sum game. Why is this is such a difficult concept to understand?

Some people feel digitization would alienate their rights. But the only people who are complaining about this are those who know they will get caught
shirking the system. For the most part, healthy people aren't worrying. And those that do are either delusional or irrational.

Originally posted by irishchic
I for one do not WANT the "government" to provide my healthcare...

Can you imagine if they had the option of actually controlling who gets what and when and how even more so than they do now?

I'd rather get trashed on Tequila and saw off my own arm.

It works everywhere else. Those that are denied quickly realize that it falls upon themselves to deal with their physical and emotional
insufficiencies. Honestly, there's no conspiracy. In Canada, for example, there are extensive regulations, ethical committees and organizations
related to considering all patients equably. An entire functioning bureaucracy emerges out of this demand for efficiency. It really is sad people are
so unhinged here in the U.S. There's no reason to be afraid that the government innately considers you a liability, except of course for paranoia and
extreme resentment for all government officials, mostly likely rationalized on a historical consideration for the last eight years of
neo-liberalism.

Originally posted by irishchic
Healthy people aren't profitable enough. I have been very ill and chose to become very healthy and have seen the difference first hand.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Instead of more taxation why not add national healthcare to the social security system?

The social security system is a blatant Ponzi scheme. In fact, I challenge anyone to find a more obvious prime example of a Ponzi scheme than the
SSS. The fact that it is mandatory is proof that our government is a complete sham and scam!

Originally posted by cognoscente
You can't just eliminate half of the population at whim.

Conversely, you can't enslave half of the population to take care of the other half at whim. Leave me the hell out of this mess. I'll take care of
myself, myself, and the day I can't you can toss my sorry pitiful excuseful burdensome ass off a cliff. Honestly, this is all so ridiculous.
Again, if whatever solution they come up with is dependent upon MY mandatory participation, well, you might as well then declare that solution
a failed solution, because I will refuse to play along. I will not be enslaved to insure the socialist will have their way. If the solution is
dependent up my participation, I will go away and cause your plan to FAIL! Understand?

Think about what will happen if they nationalize healthcare. First of all, the fed will determine how much dotors will be making, and they will all
most likely be making the same amount thus demotivating individuals to be better. Which will result in crappier healthcare. Secondly, can you imagine
how long the average idiot will have to wait in line to get a procedure or operation? I'm sure the rich and wealthy will have their own little
independent system in which they wont have to wait in any lines, and their doctors will be getting paid more motivating them be BETTER doctors. My
last gripe with nationalized healthcare is the fact that the fed will determine who gets what....for example: a 65 year old man needs a hip or a knee
replacement....the fed determines by certain aspects of his life (which are on his file in the feds computerized healthcare records system) that his
life expectancy is 75 years. They then determine it is not cost effective to give this man the procedure he needs and he is a guven a quick fix, like
a cane, some generic painkillers, a wheelchair, etc etc.

"There's no reason to be afraid that the government innately considers you a liability, except of course for paranoia and extreme resentment for all
government officials, mostly likely rationalized on a historical consideration for the last eight years of neo-liberalism. "

In regards to this however,my feelings are based more on 25+ years of first-hand experiences that make me somewhat of a skeptic.

Health care is already highly technologically advanced in the U.S. It's actually so advanced here that no substantial advancements are going to
positively affect the whole range of the population, only the richest individuals and families. Advancements in high-cost robotic surgery isn't going
to help anyone who has an income lower than the highest brackets. I don't think corporations are very motivated at the moment to provide new
technological medical solutions to the median population, to those that can't actually afford their billion dollar investments in research and
development. Think about if that RND were subsidized. Everyone would receive benefits from such research.

If it were nationalized, everyone would receive marginally worse quality of medical attention, however a larger proportion of population would be
tended to. Creating digital histories and records of every patient in the country would increase efficiency. A large, functioning bureaucracy would
emerge, which would deal with ethical considerations such as the preferential selection of patients based on needs. The loss in technological progress
wouldn't really be considerable. Medical technology can only get so good. There's an upper limit. When the human body is one-hundred percent curable
there is no need to advance. I'm not saying we're anywhere near there, but there is very little more at the moment we can do without significant
advancements in quantum computing, artificially intelligent robotics and genetic pharmacology. Until those technologies come about then is not going
to significantly affect the quality of medical care and the incentives of practitioners.

Yup. National health care is like a lottery where everyone is told they will win, ha, except we would probably only get back like 30 cents on our
dollar investment.

With national health care, not EVERYONE is going to be able to get a new heart when they need one, we simply can't afford that, it just won't work.
At least with the current system, SOME will get a new heart. Sure, maybe it will only be those that can afford it .. but, THAT should be the
motivation to work hard enough TO afford it.

With an all or nothing (it's a RIGHT for ALL) solution, nobody will be able to get a new heart, and we all will suffer and die. With a privileged
system, at least those that have worked their butts off and saved (instead of buying iPod and large screen teevees on credit) will be able to afford
that new heart when they need it. National health care isn't going to be able to keep us ALL alive until we reach 100 years of age (or whatever).

Take food as a comparative example. Right now there obviously isn't enough food to go around, because a lot of people are starving today. But if
food was also nationalized, maybe all won't starve, but we would all be less nourished as a result.

I know this doesn't sound fair to the Robbing Hoodlum crowd, but .. it really is UP TO YOU whether you can or can't afford it, it's just a matter
of how hard you want to work to save your own life, or waste your money on crap instead! Anyone that says they can't afford health insurance should
take a look at all the crap they have wasted their money upon before lying about what they can or can't really afford.

I actually just downloaded this very insightful paper from my University's online catalog. It's titled Equilibrium social insurance with
policy-motivated parties and is authored by De Donder and Hindriks of the University of Toulouse in France. I'm not technically allowed to
distribute this, but if you send me a private message with your e-mail address I would not hesitate to share.

Basically, it examines income polarization in the U.S. They conclude that because income disparity is so high, risk aversion tends to dominate any
political decision making process on issues that are so focal on income disparity.

It makes a lot of sense now just after reading this discussion here on the boards. Highest-income earners are positively risk-averse, meaning they
tend to oppose implementation symmetrically, and that they believe the implementation of some public health care system would impose a significant
cost on their finances, while diminishing the probability of a profitable return in terms of service. On the other hand, the lowest-income earners are
negatively risk-averse, meaning they support implementation symmetrically, but tend to burden the system in terms of its service. In the short run,
lowest-income earners take full advantage of the system, while highest-income earners are indifferent. But this problem peters out in the long run as
people realize the system isn't going to disappear. Just imagine if you were really poor; you would definitely jump at the opportunity to get all
your medical concerns addressed immediately, assuming you might believe it's not going to last forever. But when you realize it's not going to
disappear, many of these concerns become trivialized. Also, in response, bureaucratizing elements tend to create a system to reduce inefficiency in
the short term, thereby alleviating stress, even though this might have some adverse social effects on the poor, and media might jump the gun to
portray the medical industry are cold-blooded, inclusive and discretionary.

This observation definitely leads credence to the notion that a single-tiered medical system just wouldn't work politically, even though it just
might work on a technical level. The whole issue is convincing people, and since people are evolutionary predisposed to think in the short-term, it
gets rather difficult to address issues such as long-term free medical care, especially when it seems people's finances, and hence their security,
are at stake.

Perhaps if this were to be implemented on a regional level, one that supersedes state boundaries, this might be a viable strategy. What do you think
about this? A regional health insurance system would be organized along boundaries, designed to enhance political efficiency based on income
disparity. Prices would be differ region to region, with membership restricted to the category they are placed into by the federal government. And
since this is nationalized, every region would be expected to meet very high standards of medical technology and professionalism.

If Obama wants to implement a free medical insurance program then it will be very difficult to implement on a national level. I'm starting to think
that nation-states with increasing high income disparity just won't make it through this next century, as growing capitalism is apparently making
this situation worse every year. It makes a lot of sense when you look at all the different countries of the world.

Canada and Australia have a low degree of income polarization and their public health insurance industries are rarely the center of attention in any
political debate. Whoever focuses their political platforms on such non-existent issues during election times are rarely considered by voters, and
rationalized as political outliers, or a waste of time.

In the U.S. it is almost the opposite. I think this should be done a state or even better yet, a regional level, if it is to succeed. A national heath
insurance policy, after reading this paper and reflecting on the very nature of this thread, simply isn't mathematically reasonable on a political
level, unless of course we adjust equilibria by changing our cultural attitudes, which is impossible of course.

I still don't think it would be difficult to operate some sort of public health care system on a technical level, assuming people can weather through
the short-term scenario, which entails high degrees of political contention and high burdens on the system itself. I believe the emergence of
bureaucracy would address short-term rationality, and shifting cultural attitudes in the long run would address unstable political equilibria,
maximizing the expected utility of both the conservatives and liberals in terms of risk-aversion due to income disparity.

You are singing to the choir, babe. Hubby and I often have this argument. I'm a staunch free-markets person and he thinks there should be
licensing. He has actually told me that there might be quacks hurting people without licensing. I countered with your very argument about the docs
themselves restricting entry into the profession and followed with the existence of licensed quacks molesting women who are drugged. Discussion got
heated and while he knows that I respect the work HE does, there is much not to respect about the profession as well.

My husband is again a rare breed and he went to learn a little about the unpleasant history of his field after that discussion. Interestingly enough,
his mother- also a doc (Ob/Gyn)- calls for the need of western medicine combined with...wait for it... alternative natural therapies. Funny how I
never thought her an ally before I married her son. ;o)

I agree that it is a problem that lies with the insurance companies. The basic cost of anything medical is rediculous! I blame the pharmecuticals
also because of the profit margin on medicines. My son had cancer in 1989 and his care was $175,000 USD for treatment for 1 year. I even had
insurance and still had to declare bankrupcy because of it. Maybe if it were controlled by people who are to be held responsible it would work.
Something has clearly got to change or the poor will just die away and now we are all getting poorer.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.